Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the multi-source aggregation (DexScreener, GeckoTerminal, CoinGecko), specific liveness checks (stars, last push, archived), and interpretive guidance (strong vs thin profile). It does not disclose potential rate limits or failure modes, but the core behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences efficiently deliver purpose, use cases, and input guidance. The first sentence is dense but packs necessary details (sources, liveness criteria). No wasted words, but the heavy parentheticals slightly reduce readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description explains what it finds, how to interpret results, and how to structure inputs. It does not specify the return format (e.g., whether it returns URLs, scores), but it gives enough behavioral context to set expectations. Minor gap given no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), but the description adds critical semantic context: when to use contract+chain vs name, and that chain is needed for contracts. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions, enhancing the agent's ability to invoke correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific function: 'Find and VERIFY a project's WEBSITE, SOCIALS, and CODE REPOS' with concrete sources and liveness checks. It differentiates from siblings like domain_check or onchain_lookup by being the dedicated tool for project links and repo liveness, explicitly calling itself 'THE tool for...' that use case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'THE tool for 'what is this project's website / socials / do they have real code / profile the team behind this token''. It also provides input format instructions ('Pass the CONTRACT (+ chain) for a memecoin/NFT, or the name for a listed coin'). However, it does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use, slightly reducing the score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.